guild icon
Mayflower District Court
#npz_v-v-mayflower-department-of-justice-sadoimpacto
This is the start of #npz_v-v-mayflower-department-of-justice-sadoimpacto channel.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-04 03:26 p.m.
New Case
Case Type
civil
Case Number
CV-433-25
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
Bluahmed0900
Bluahmed0900 2025-09-04 03:27 p.m.
Assigned to Magistrate @vloqsouls
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-04 03:32 p.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Judge vloqsouls.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-04 03:32 p.m.
Case Modified
@vloqsouls has added @Ian to the case channel.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 03:40 p.m.
@vloqsouls
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 03:40 p.m.
simple FOIA
vloqsoulsvloqsouls used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-04 03:56 p.m.
Case Modified
@vloqsouls has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-04 04:01 p.m.
@Ian In the event that I accept your FOIA petition, I will not be compelling the Department of Justice or Respondent to forcibly disclose Discord DMs. Refer to https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1396886401135415376/1397744714274574457 and https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1410747829382676480/1411081478560809051
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-04 04:02 p.m.
Now with regard to your petition specifically, I'm not inclined to automatically accept that this Court has jurisdiction over FOIA requests that have been formally denied.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 04:05 p.m.
would you like me to write a memorandum of law
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 04:05 p.m.
as to jurisdiction over denied FOIA
IanIan
would you like me to write a memorandum of law
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-04 04:06 p.m.
This Court's ability to compel the disclosure of records prima facie exists only in instances where a state agency has failed to disclose records within a timely manner as outlined by 4 M.S.C 5 section 5313.(edited)
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-04 04:06 p.m.
If your memorandum of law will address this, then yes.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
This Court's ability to compel the disclosure of records prima facie exists only in instances where a state agency has failed to disclose records within a timely manner as outl...(edited)
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 04:08 p.m.
I disagre
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 04:08 p.m.
disagree
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 04:09 p.m.
My memorandum will address that
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-04 04:09 p.m.
You can disagree all you want counsellor
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-04 04:09 p.m.
But the text of the statute suggests that conclusion.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 04:10 p.m.
Our FOIA is analogous to its federal counterpart, under which FOIA requests that are not fulfilled for any reason, including denial, can be compelled to be completed by a court
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 04:10 p.m.
Additionally this same court has sided in favor of a petitioner in a FOIA action where his request had been denied as exempted
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 04:10 p.m.
in a case I argued myself(edited)
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-04 04:11 p.m.
Is there a citation to this case
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 04:11 p.m.
Id rather put in memorandum
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 04:11 p.m.
so I can stretch it out and explain it thoroughly
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-04 04:12 p.m.
Ok but until then the timer for a reply will be tolled
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 04:12 p.m.
sure
Ian
Ian 2025-09-04 07:35 p.m.
sorry it took me so long to write a somewhat short argument
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 11:51 a.m.
@vloqsouls
IanIan
@vloqsouls
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 12:17 p.m.
@vloqsouls If I could just add we still object on the grounds of it being overly broad. There are hundreds of messages with the keywords “law” “clearance” “officer,” etc., that have absolutely nothing to do with anything that would be relevant to his specific case
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 12:18 p.m.
I’m also pretty sure that discussions themselves are privileged in a way unless FOIA can now be used to ad hoc wiretap a DM conversation or force an agency to uncover and disclose thousands of irrelevant messages
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 12:19 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 12:19 p.m.
This is the result for the keyword officer alone
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 12:20 p.m.
Within that time frame he specified it would make zero difference it still includes at least 30-40 irrelevant messages, all of which have nothing to do with anything relevant here(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 12:20 p.m.
If he wants to do some kind of “quasi-discovery” through FOIA then he needs to file a lawsuit and subpoena specific items
vloqsouls pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
meowiittenmeowiitten
I’m also pretty sure that discussions themselves are privileged in a way unless FOIA can now be used to ad hoc wiretap a DM conversation or force an agency to uncover and disclose ...
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 01:42 p.m.
They cannot, because DMs are not subject to forcible disclosure
IanIan
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 01:50 p.m.
So the central core argument is about legislative intent, wonderful.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 01:51 p.m.
In that case, why should I interpret the statutory text in such a way that allows for courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over matters not granted to it via statutory law?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 01:52 p.m.
After all, it is a "familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive” Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980)
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 01:53 p.m.
I think all of us agree here that words have true, definitive meaning; and as such they ought to be interpreted in the most reasonable manner possible
meowiittenmeowiitten
@vloqsouls If I could just add we still object on the grounds of it being overly broad. There are hundreds of messages with the keywords “law” “clearance” “officer,” et...
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:09 p.m.
That’s not how this works
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:09 p.m.
Jurisdiction has yet not been established, and you haven’t been summoned
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:10 p.m.
Once it is, you need a paper response
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 04:10 p.m.
Syfau
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:11 p.m.
Unkind
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
I think all of us agree here that words have true, definitive meaning; and as such they ought to be interpreted in the most reasonable manner possible
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:11 p.m.
What the senate wanted with this bill is to bring FOIA to Mayflower
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:11 p.m.
They don’t have any notes about it because they never do, it’s Roblox
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:11 p.m.
None of the senators from then even talked about it at all, I checked
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:12 p.m.
But it is clear that the idea was to bring FOIA from the US code
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:13 p.m.
This is clear when comparing the exemptions, they are virtually identical—kenneytube (the bill’s writer) wrote them that way to optimize for § 552’s immense text
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:13 p.m.
Something that can only be interpreted as a small mistake cannot override that the senate fully intended on bringing § 552 to codification
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:14 p.m.
This court has already decided just that in the past, and it’s been settled law for a while now. In fact, it was featured in the law review for being a win for civil freedoms
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:15 p.m.
The question, if anything, is why would this court reverse that judgment
meowiittenmeowiitten
Click to see attachment.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:21 p.m.
1. I included a timestamp, which I see you realized and corrected in your argument
2. When did I “specify it would make zero difference”? What are you talking about?
3. What are my messages irrelevant to? Is there an exemption that says you can deny my request if the purpose I list doesn’t coincide with what I ask? There isn’t, it does, and you can’t.
4. What exemption allows you to deny a request for being a “quasi-discovery”?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:21 p.m.
Please, get your arguments together … you’re making no sense.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 04:22 p.m.
Or just save it for a response once jurisdiction is established, as would be procedurally proper
IanIan
1. I included a timestamp, which I see you realized and corrected in your argument 2. When did I “specify it would make zero difference”? What are you talking about? 3. What are my...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 04:39 p.m.
1. Ok
2. Did not impute it to you
3. Kissinger v. Reporters Comm., 445 U.S. 136 (1980), and Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (1980) (FOIA reaches only “agency records”; agencies need not create new records or retrieve non-agency materials).[1]
4. "Discovery for litigation purposes is not an expressly indicated purpose of [FOIA]." Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 US 1, 24 (1974); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978); see also United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. 792 (1984) (holding that FOIA cannot be used to supplement or replace civil discovery); Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U. S. 345, 360, n. 14 (1982) (same).

[1] See also Marks v. United States, 578 F.2d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1978) (“Broad, sweeping requests lacking specificity are not permissible.”); see also, e.g., Irons v. Schuyler, 465 F.2d 608, 613 (D.C. Cir.) (request seeking "all unpublished manuscript decisions of the Patent Office" held "so broad in the context of the Patent Office files" as to be insufficient), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1076 (1972); Fonda v. CIA, 434 F. Supp. 498, 501 (D.D.C. 1977) (request for all documents not mentioning plaintiff's name but which "concern her" held too broad).
(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 04:40 p.m.
@vloqsouls This case is retarded
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 04:41 p.m.
What I can say is that we have no way of complying with his request thus we cannot fail to comply
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 04:42 p.m.
I am not going to leak all of my DMs (none of which reference him by the way he's not that special) to satisfy this it's frankly not that serious
meowiittenmeowiitten
@vloqsouls This case is retarded
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 04:46 p.m.
Do not use that kind of foul language in my chambers
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 04:46 p.m.
?order
Dyno
Dyno Bot2025-09-05 04:46 p.m.
Order!

“Judicial officers are officers of unwavering authority and impartiality.” Minute Order to Hold Defendant in Civil Contempt, at ¶ 1, Kingley Napley v. Adolobee, No. CV-0068-24, (Mayfl. Dist. Ct. Feb. 19 2025) (citing Zrihem, et al. v. TDark99, 1 Mayfl. ___, ___ (2024) (slip op., at 11) (Cabot, J., dissenting)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court will not tolerate any further disruptions!
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 04:46 p.m.
Okay haha but regardless
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 04:46 p.m.
I can't comply with it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 04:46 p.m.
Community rules
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 04:47 p.m.
I'm not even addressing the arguments in relation to whether or not you can comply with the request; I am more concerned with whether I have the ability to compel disclosure without a legitimate "failure to respond" as outlined by our state code
IanIan
This is clear when comparing the exemptions, they are virtually identical—kenneytube (the bill’s writer) wrote them that way to optimize for § 552’s immense text
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 04:49 p.m.
Well my question is if they intended to allow for judicial review of denied FOIA requests, why didn't they write that explicitly in the first place?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 04:50 p.m.
The decision you cited is effectively rewriting what the statute actually says based on what the judiciary thinks it says
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 04:52 p.m.
You might perhaps think that the Senators meant to say X, but if they really did want to say X, then why not write it within the statute itself?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 04:55 p.m.
There are such things as non-statutory review actions but that's only where (1) the officer or agency acts beyond clearly delegated statutory power, or (2) the statute itself is unconstitutional
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 04:55 p.m.
He is not claiming either here
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 04:55 p.m.
Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 04:55 p.m.
And Chamber of Commerce v. Reich
meowiittenmeowiitten
There are such things as non-statutory review actions but that's only where (1) the officer or agency acts beyond clearly delegated statutory power, or (2) the statute itself is un...
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 04:55 p.m.
Which isn't what I'm referring to either
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 04:56 p.m.
This is a matter of statutory construction and how it is meant to be interpreted, not whether a particular act is constitutional or whether someone goes beyond their authority.(edited)
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 04:56 p.m.
SCOTUS effectively bed rocked the principle that courts defer to what the text of a statute says directly via Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006) and Consumer Product Safety Commission, supra.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 04:59 p.m.
@Ian Am I understanding correctly that your argument rests primarily on this basis of "well, the Senators wanted to do X and Y but they only wrote X"
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 05:01 p.m.
I haven't even touched the arguments regarding the validity of the request itself, seeing as this question of subject matter jurisdiction is vastly more important
IanIan
This is clear when comparing the exemptions, they are virtually identical—kenneytube (the bill’s writer) wrote them that way to optimize for § 552’s immense text
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 05:20 p.m.
Furthermore, the primary, and arguably the most important, difference between section 552 and our FOIA is the very extensiveness of section 552 which supports de novo review of denied FOIA requests by courts, not just requests to which an agency "failed to respond" to:
"On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo, and may examine the contents of such agency records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section, and the burden is on the agency to sustain its action. "
(edited)
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 05:22 p.m.
In our particular case, there is no such provision, nor is the term "fail to respond" defined within the statute. The only logical and reasonable conclusion which remains is for me to defer to the common meaning of the phrase, that is, to not answer within a specified timeframe.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 05:24 p.m.
@Ian Unless you have some other definition of "fail to respond" which is supported by a dictionary of some sorts, I don't feel that the line of thought you have given to me is quite convincing in determining that this court has jurisdiction to hear your claim.
meowiittenmeowiitten
1. Ok 2. Did not impute it to you 3. Kissinger v. Reporters Comm., 445 U.S. 136 (1980), and Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (1980) (FOIA reaches only “agency records”; age...(edited)
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:09 p.m.
I can reply to this but there's no point because you can't "object" to a FOIA petition in the early stage
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:09 p.m.
You need to actually file a response
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:10 p.m.
Once you do I will respond to it
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
You might perhaps think that the Senators meant to say X, but if they really did want to say X, then why not write it within the statute itself?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:12 p.m.
Because the statute was very shortened to actually make it possible to codify in our MSC
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:12 p.m.
I guess that's how they shortened it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:12 p.m.
but the courts regularly recognize federal precedent and rules when ours were taken from those counterparts
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:13 p.m.
for example, federal rules of procedure are binding when there's nothing about a specific topic in our rules
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:13 p.m.
same thing applies here
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:13 p.m.
You cant expect the senators to be perfect, I think we all know they aren't
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:13 p.m.
But this is what they intended, the court ruled as much, and now your honor should adhere to that precedent following the horizontal stare decisis doctrine
IanIan
for example, federal rules of procedure are binding when there's nothing about a specific topic in our rules
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:28 p.m.
Right but this isn't a procedural matter, this relates to this Court's ability to adjudicate this case period.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:29 p.m.
Anywho I will deliver a formalaized ruling whenever I can
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Right but this isn't a procedural matter, this relates to this Court's ability to adjudicate this case period.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:34 p.m.
sure but it's been held for long that the court has jurisdiction
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:35 p.m.
I just don't think your purport is strong enough to override whatsmynamehuuu
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:36 p.m.
I mean overriding it would mean that no precedent will apply to the Act, something contrary to what the senate intended
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:36 p.m.
this will make it essentially useless
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:40 p.m.
Well if the Senate really intended to allow courts to review formalized denials of FOIA requests, then they should either (1) add provisions to construe denials as a "failure to respond" for the purposes of FOIA petitions or (2) ratify statute(s) that grant the District Court broad discretion over FOIA review.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:41 p.m.
But as far as the current language of FOIA stands I am not willing to make a leap of faith to distort the ordinary meaning of words in order to facilitate an outcome which seeks to push what is effectively in practice a judicial rewriting of the laws passed by the legislature.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:44 p.m.
It is explained best in the words of Justice Scalia; "When someone asks "Do you use a cane?" he is not inquiring whether you have your grandfather's silver handled walking stick on display in the hall; he wants to know whether you walk with a cane." Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting.)
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:44 p.m.
the leap of faith would be to overturn whatsmynamehuuu
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:45 p.m.
not to allow the FOIA petition to continue
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:45 p.m.
this is established law
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:45 p.m.
there's no reason to overturn it, the government didn't even appeal it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:46 p.m.
I don't think overturning it, sua sponte even, will be a good thing or what is actually fair
IanIan
I don't think overturning it, sua sponte even, will be a good thing or what is actually fair
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:46 p.m.
Counsellor, I will put it very simply like this.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:47 p.m.
A good judge never makes decisions based on his subjective ideals.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:47 p.m.
He makes decisions based on the fundamental principles of the law.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:47 p.m.
Of course, and I am not saying you should go against the law
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:47 p.m.
I meant this is what the law implies
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:50 p.m.
The law requires that we use common sense in statutory construction, and that we defer to the long-standing principle that "a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, supra.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:51 p.m.
What about this
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:51 p.m.
If the Senate wanted to say something else, they are the Senate. They have the power to write the law.
IanIan
the leap of faith would be to overturn whatsmynamehuuu
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 06:52 p.m.
Horizontal stare decisis :🤯:
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:53 p.m.
"Any court of general jurisdiction within the State of Mayflower is hereby vested with subject matter jurisdiction to hear, adjudicate, and render final judgment on any civil action brought under this Section." 5 M.S.C. 2 § 1203.
Tending to a FOIA request and disclosing records, if not exempted, is a non-discretionary duty by the plain and clear wording of our FOIA. The court has general jurisdiction to oversee that this non-discretionary duty is met
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:54 p.m.
if not, the petition could be construed as a count for declaratory judgment, where I'm seeking to establish that the legal relation between me and the government is that they owe me the information because it is not exempt
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:55 p.m.
5 M.S.C. 1 § 1404.1
IanIan
"Any court of general jurisdiction within the State of Mayflower is hereby vested with subject matter jurisdiction to hear, adjudicate, and render final judgment on any civil actio...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 06:55 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-05 06:55 p.m.
???
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:56 p.m.
oop
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:56 p.m.
s
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:57 p.m.
look there's also this
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:57 p.m.
Even if you disagree with me that the plain reading grants jurisdiction, that would essentially make the act unenforceable
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:58 p.m.
The government can just deny everything left and right for no reason and that's not at all in any way what the senate intended
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:58 p.m.
nor is it democratically fair and just
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:58 p.m.
Counsellor, I have a question for you.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:58 p.m.
very simple one.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:58 p.m.
Do you think the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to be 'fair'?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:59 p.m.
yes, among other things
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 06:59 p.m.
Im pretty sure the word fair is in our preamble
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:59 p.m.
And what exactly does it mean for something to be fair?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 06:59 p.m.
Fair according to whom?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:00 p.m.
According to the people at large
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:00 p.m.
By their representatives the legislature
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
And what exactly does it mean for something to be fair?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:00 p.m.
Senate determines that
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:00 p.m.
...The legislature determines whether something is fair?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:01 p.m.
I mean they make the law, yes
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:01 p.m.
But they don’t make the justice themselves, they don’t apply it
IanIan
But they don’t make the justice themselves, they don’t apply it
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:01 p.m.
So then who ultimately bears the responsibility of determining whether something is fair?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:02 p.m.
Is it perhaps the unelected lawyers that encompass the trial and appellate courts?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:02 p.m.
Isn't it unfair for judges and justices to serve for life and not be democratically appointed by the people?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:02 p.m.
Judges are chosen by the people
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:03 p.m.
But by a system that’s slightly more complicated than electing a regular senator
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:03 p.m.
Because our founders recognized judges were of a specialized field and that the general population wouldn’t really know about them
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:04 p.m.
They elect senators because they trust that, once the senator finds out about that judge, and knowing what’s needed, he’ll make the choice the people would
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
So then who ultimately bears the responsibility of determining whether something is fair?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:05 p.m.
There are three sides to justice
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:05 p.m.
The committee that makes the rules about the football game
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:05 p.m.
The person that accuses somebody when they see them break a rule
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:05 p.m.
And the referee that decides whether a rule was broken or not
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:05 p.m.
Fairness is not built by one branch of government alone
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:05 p.m.
I didn't ask about justice, counsellor, I asked about fairness and what constitutes something to be fair
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:06 p.m.
Who bears the responsibility?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:06 p.m.
Each branch bears a different aspect of it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:06 p.m.
It’s not exclusive to one power or person
IanIan
It’s not exclusive to one power or person
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:07 p.m.
So then let me ask you this
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:07 p.m.
Determining fairness, like justice, is a delicate process
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:07 p.m.
Why do Supreme Court justices rule on the premise of fairness?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:07 p.m.
Because if your principle were to be true,
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:07 p.m.
that is, no one man can decide whether something is fair,
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:07 p.m.
how come its such a common phenomenon in our society?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:07 p.m.
I have to disagree with you
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:08 p.m.
When a justice rules on something he is ruling the way he thinks the people would
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:08 p.m.
He is a representative of the people, as is the entire government(edited)
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:09 p.m.
They are chosen by the governor, who was chosen by the people to do just that, and confirmed by the legislature, that was also chosen by the people to do just that, to represent the people
IanIan
I have to disagree with you
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:09 p.m.
But this is your principle that you utilized to justify your premise; that I should ultimately rule based on the most 'fair' or equitable outcome for the people.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:09 p.m.
Irrespective of what the law actually says.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:09 p.m.
Yes, because I believe the legislative intent behind the act is fairness
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:10 p.m.
Not because I think you should create fairness here out of thin air
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:10 p.m.
I believe it is clear that the act is meant to foment transparency and fairness and your ruling would diametrically oppose that
IanIan
Not because I think you should create fairness here out of thin air
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:11 p.m.
The problem is that this is precisely what you are doing; you are essentially asking me to write a ruling that would solidify this idea of 'fairness', which goes directly against what common thought and how courts handle statutory construction, because it is the 'right thing to do.'
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:12 p.m.
If the senate clearly made a mistake that accidentally opposes their own concept of fairness (not the court’s own) when really they meant to do something slightly different
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:12 p.m.
The court should affirm the latter
IanIan
If the senate clearly made a mistake that accidentally opposes their own concept of fairness (not the court’s own) when really they meant to do something slightly different
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:12 p.m.
Counsellor I am not using fairness to justify my rationale period.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
The problem is that this is precisely what you are doing; you are essentially asking me to write a ruling that would solidify this idea of 'fairness', which goes directly against w...
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:12 p.m.
No, you misinterpret me
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:12 p.m.
'Fairness' has nothing to do with what I am saying.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:13 p.m.
I am not asking you to create law or do what I think is subjectively correct
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:13 p.m.
I recognize the courts’ purpose is not grounded in that
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:13 p.m.
I believe that because of the way the act is structured, and taking into account the intended fairness, among other things, the statute is meant to give courts jurisdiction to reevaluate a FOIA merit de novo
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:14 p.m.
intended fairness, that is already there—you wouldn’t be making law, you would be applying what the act already says, implicitly or explicitly
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:15 p.m.
I know I’m not the best lawyer in Roblox but asking you to rule based on subjective fairness is beyond even me. Understanding my argument that way would simply be a misinterpretation
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:16 p.m.
Well how else am I supposed to interpret your argument? Your argument essentially goes against the most major principle of statutory construction all in favour of a "right" to challenge FOIA denials, something which isn't guaranteed by FOIA.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:16 p.m.
At least our version of FOIA.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:17 p.m.
Picture this
IanIan
Picture this
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:17 p.m.
Draw me a microsoft paint image.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:17 p.m.
Let me think of an example
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:17 p.m.
Of a bill
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:18 p.m.
Hm
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:18 p.m.
Take your time
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:18 p.m.
I understand this is quite theoretical
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:20 p.m.
Ok imagine a bill that’s also intended to promote fairness and transparency in government by requiring that a board hold a meeting every week that everybody can attend to discuss the government and laws, once they’re done they publish something regarding what they talked about
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:20 p.m.
Govt board
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:20 p.m.
The statute says that in the case the board fails to convene this meeting they must send a letter to the senate explaining why and host another one to make up for it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:21 p.m.
The bill is purely original and not copied from any other government at all
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:22 p.m.
Now, say the government gives a right to citizens to bring a cause of action if the board doesn’t convene and then fails to reconvene to make up for it. It explicitly says that it won’t be applicable if the board does reconvene, even if they miss one meeting
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:23 p.m.
In this case, the bill is clearly meant to foment fairness. But a court would clearly not have jurisdiction if somebody sued because the board didn’t convene one time
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:23 p.m.
There are key differences
krm
krm 2025-09-05 07:25 p.m.
n
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:26 p.m.
1. PRACTICABLE: the board can’t decide to stop convening and send letters to the senate forever.
2. ENFORCEABLE: when it fails to convene, the senate will know about it and take appropriate action. If it fails to reconvene, even the courts will have jurisdiction. This means that there’s actually an enforcement mechanism to make sure the law is followed.
3. PLAIN READING: the bill is grounded to its statutory language. It isn’t meant to adopt precedent from another government, or for another law to be a model for how this one should be. It is an original bill.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:27 p.m.
In this case, if I sued the board because they didn’t convene one tkme
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:27 p.m.
Don't delete messages I have vencord
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:27 p.m.
I will be immediately tossed
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Don't delete messages I have vencord
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:27 p.m.
Mb
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:27 p.m.
I deleted within 5s
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:27 p.m.
Respectfully I don't give a shit
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:27 p.m.
Don't delete messages
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:27 p.m.
Ok
IanIan
I will be immediately tossed
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:27 p.m.
Whereas
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:30 p.m.
Our FOIA:
1. IMPRACTICABLE: if no precedent applied, like you suggest, only the explicit language, agencies could just deny everything and face absolutely zero repercussions. It would make the act completely moot.
2. UNENFORCEABLE: the courts could never review anything, nor could the senate do anything about it bc they’d be unaware
3. PRECEDENTIAL: this Act is obviously based upon a real law, and its impact should be taken into consideration when interpreting it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:32 p.m.
Your ruling would suggest that 1. The senate created an act that is, when analyzed, virtually identical (if not for the necessary size-down) to federal FOIA, but meant for it to work differently; 2. The senate wanted it to not be enforced—they meant it as a suggestion; and 3. The senate didn’t care if it was actually practicable or not—they made the act to clutter the MSC.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:33 p.m.
work substantially differently**
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:34 p.m.
When I talked about fairness, I was talking about the enforceability and practicability of the act—how the senate meant for it to be the two of those things, not neither (obviously). I didn’t mean you should apply something that doesn’t exist here, or apply your own, subjective opinion
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:34 p.m.
Ok are you finished
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:35 p.m.
Yes
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:35 p.m.
Alright
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:35 p.m.
Few things
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:37 p.m.
I feel that your arguments are primarily based on rhetoric and not as a matter of law; perhaps maybe other judges or justices may be swayed by this kind of grand-standing but I am not one of them.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
I feel that your arguments are primarily based on rhetoric and not as a matter of law; perhaps maybe other judges or justices may be swayed by this kind of grand-standing but I am ...
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:39 p.m.
The example and your following rationale fail to address the most critical question, that is, why should I disregard the ordinary meaning of something in favour of something which is 'fair' or 'for the greater good' or something along this lines when such a ruling would contradict fundamental legal principles?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:40 p.m.
Perhaps maybe my ruling might have a potential consequence of rendering a statute unenforceable, but that is not the primary concern of judges and justices when it comes to making interpretations of the law.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:41 p.m.
In common law jurisdictions, or at least the US which Mayflower is analogous to, they do not care about what the social or practical consequences might be; they care about what the law says.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:41 p.m.
This is precisely why we have a concept of judicial review in the first place; to say what the law is, not what it should be.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:42 p.m.
I’m not asking you to go against the law. I believe this is what the law implied in the first place.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:42 p.m.
I completely support that you want to say what the law is and not what it should be, and I reiterate that that’s what you’d be doing
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:44 p.m.
I am not asking you to do what I think is right. I am asking you to do what I think the law says.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Perhaps maybe my ruling might have a potential consequence of rendering a statute unenforceable, but that is not the primary concern of judges and justices when it comes to making ...
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:45 p.m.
If the act actually wasn’t intended to be enforced
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:45 p.m.
I wouldn’t want you to interpret it as needing to be enforced
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:45 p.m.
But that’s not the case
Ian
Ian 2025-09-05 07:45 p.m.
I believe the act is meant to be enforced and that’s implicit
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:45 p.m.
Ok I don't want to drag this on forever so I'm going to pull the plug here.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-05 07:46 p.m.
I will have a formalized ruling maybe sometime over the weekend but not a guarantee, and I will say what the provisions of FOIA are, not what they should be.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-06 12:17 p.m.
@vloqsouls can I submit a supplemental brief
Ian
Ian 2025-09-06 12:18 p.m.
I dont want to keep clogging the chat in here but I feel like some of my arguments aren’t being addressed
Ian
Ian 2025-09-06 12:18 p.m.
I’ve said I don’t derive fairness in this case from subjectiveness but from the interpretation of the law itself, but that’s just one point of many
Ian
Ian 2025-09-06 12:18 p.m.
I’d like to talk about it further
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-06 12:22 p.m.
I won't allow another supplemental brief, but you can put a few paragraphs together to illustrate anything I might have missed.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-06 12:22 p.m.
I feel like a brief might be better can you reconsider
Ian
Ian 2025-09-06 12:22 p.m.
It’s a better canvas to paint an argument in
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-06 12:22 p.m.
By the end of today EST
Ian
Ian 2025-09-06 12:22 p.m.
Ok
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-06 12:22 p.m.
I dont want to see repeated arguments in there
Ian
Ian 2025-09-06 11:01 p.m.
@vloqsouls
Ian
Ian 2025-09-06 11:01 p.m.
Im seeing if I can get the senator to comment in a supplemental authority
Ian
Ian 2025-09-06 11:02 p.m.
since this is somewhat of an extraordinary case—there is literally no possibility of drawing intent besides the fact that the law is clearly written exactly like federal FOIA
Ian
Ian 2025-09-06 11:02 p.m.
because the senate has never once published even one debate about it or anything they just passed it quasi unanimously
IanIan
@vloqsouls
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 01:14 a.m.
I fail to see how me not interpreting the FOIA statute to grant subject matter jurisdiction to denied FOIA petitions would produce an "odd result" or otherwise "lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence."
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 01:15 a.m.
Sure, government accountability is a core tenet of a free and just society, but it is not within the purview of the judiciary to simply incorporate a real-life federal statute and its provisions at whim, effectively rewriting state legislation.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 01:17 a.m.
If anything, interpreting laws in such a way would serve to undermine such a notion; a nation governed by unelected lawyers with the power to rewrite laws as they see fit.(edited)
IanIan
Im seeing if I can get the senator to comment in a supplemental authority
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 01:18 a.m.
I would flatly reject the opinion of any Senator to hold any water among the backwater of legal precedent.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
I fail to see how me not interpreting the FOIA statute to grant subject matter jurisdiction to denied FOIA petitions would produce an "odd result" or otherwise "lead to injustice, ...
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 01:21 a.m.
I feel that you conflate the meaning of an "odd result" with an unfair one; in which case it is the responsibility of the legislature to rectify this issue, and not the Courts.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 01:33 a.m.
Anywho I'll rule
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 01:52 a.m.
MINUTE ORDER

This Court, sua sponte, raised an objection over subject matter jurisdiction regarding over whether this Court had the jurisdiction to preside over FOIA petitions formally denied by agencies within the meaning of 4 M.S.C. 5 § 5313. This order does not seek to wholly address the merits of the FOIA petition.

In interpreting statutes, this Court must conform to "the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980). More simply, this Court "must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 296 (2006)

The text of 4 M.S.C. 5 § 5313 provides that "[s]hould a State Agency fail to respond to a FOIA request, then the FOIA requester may petition a court to order the release of the file(s) within 24 hours, unless the file(s) fall under an aforementioned exemption." Ordinarily, the phrase "fail to respond" means non-communication—that is, no acknowledgement or any indication of what the sender wishes to do. However, "general terms should be so limited in
their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will
always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language, which would avoid results of this character." United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. 482, 486–487 (1868).

It is clear that interpreting the statute in its most literal sense would strip the teeth and enforceability of Mayflower's FOIA; government agencies would be able to categorically deny all FOIA petitions using one of the aforementioned statutory exceptions to disclosure with no basis for review.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
MINUTE ORDER This Court, sua sponte, raised an objection over subject matter jurisdiction regarding over whether this Court had the jurisdiction to preside over FOIA pet...
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 01:52 a.m.
For the foregoing reasons above, this Court hereby finds subject matter jurisdiction in this matter and to continue proceedings.

Signed,
Hon. Judge vloqsouls
District Court Judge
3rd Avenue & 216 Grand Concourse
Lander, MF 19004
vloqsouls pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 01:53 a.m.
@Ian @meowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 01:56 a.m.
@vloqsouls Okay summon me
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 01:57 a.m.
Honestly do you even want a written MTD because this case is kind of ridiculous. Can we get it out of the way right now that he can't force me to disclose my DMs? I can't be expected to comply with that @vloqsouls
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 01:58 a.m.
In total he's asking for, (1) my DMs with anyone that mentions him between the dates mentioned, and (2) well over 400 discord messages that don't even reference him, but match what he is "looking" for
meowiittenmeowiitten
Honestly do you even want a written MTD because this case is kind of ridiculous. Can we get it out of the way right now that he can't force me to disclose my DMs? I can't be expect...
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 08:53 a.m.
I already said that DMs cannot be forcibly disclosed regardless
meowiittenmeowiitten
In total he's asking for, (1) my DMs with anyone that mentions him between the dates mentioned, and (2) well over 400 discord messages that don't even reference him, but match what...
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 08:54 a.m.
@Ian Response
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 08:54 a.m.
To (2)
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 08:55 a.m.
Verbal is fine
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:46 a.m.
@vloqsouls I just wanna say,
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:46 a.m.
Thank you for the ruling
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:46 a.m.
I wish a moe direct quote existed so that I could cite in this case in the future but who cares
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:47 a.m.
I understand that DMs cannot be forcibly disclosed and will not be pursuing point one, hopefully that can come in the form of you just denying that portion when the time comes rather than having me amend
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 09:49 a.m.
Well there is an objection on the grounds that your request is simply too broad
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 09:50 a.m.
And I'm inclined to believe that forcing the disclosure of over 400 messages, so the AG says, that contain keywords which encompass a wide range of communications, is in fact broad
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:50 a.m.
It’s not by the literal meaning and interpretation of the word ‘broad’
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:51 a.m.
But procedurally they’d be directed to file a paper response raising this issues
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:51 a.m.
I’d rather that
IanIan
It’s not by the literal meaning and interpretation of the word ‘broad’
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 09:51 a.m.
Well even if you want to discuss the intended purpose of the request it must be balanced alongside potential security concerns
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:51 a.m.
Typically they’re given around 24 hours because of 4 MSC 5 § 5313
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Well even if you want to discuss the intended purpose of the request it must be balanced alongside potential security concerns
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:52 a.m.
Security concerns have an exemption, § 5305(a)
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:52 a.m.
If the information is classified then they can just show you in-camera that it is
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:52 a.m.
But if it’s not, then …
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 09:52 a.m.
Thats not the primary objection
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 09:53 a.m.
But I would not opposed in considering it when the request asks for messages containing "secret," "clearance," among others
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
But I would not opposed in considering it when the request asks for messages containing "secret," "clearance," among others
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:54 a.m.
I don’t think DOJ deals with that much classified stuff
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:55 a.m.
And regardless information can only be withheld present a valid exemption, never other reasons even if reasonable
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 09:57 a.m.
A request being too broad is a valid exemption under § 5307
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 09:58 a.m.
At least thats what the ordinary language suggests:
If the request submitted by the FOIA requester is too broad, then the FOIA officer may deny the request and notify the FOIA requester of such.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
A request being too broad is a valid exemption under § 5307
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:58 a.m.
Yes, but ‘broad’ doesn’t mean what sado thinks it means
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:58 a.m.
There’s case law on it but I’d rather only address it once sado reduces his response to a paper one
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 09:59 a.m.
Which should be within 24 hours pursuant to § 5313
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 10:03 a.m.
Ill allow oral considering that I feel this issue is not as complicated as it's being made out to be.
meowiittenmeowiitten
1. Ok 2. Did not impute it to you 3. Kissinger v. Reporters Comm., 445 U.S. 136 (1980), and Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (1980) (FOIA reaches only “agency records”; age...(edited)
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 10:05 a.m.
@Ian I mean sado managed to cite case law opposing your argument, I feel that you could perhaps do the same.
meowiittenmeowiitten
1. Ok 2. Did not impute it to you 3. Kissinger v. Reporters Comm., 445 U.S. 136 (1980), and Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (1980) (FOIA reaches only “agency records”; age...(edited)
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 10:11 a.m.
3. Messages in a department chat are regarded as agency records subject to FOIA disclosure, just that there’s no case law about it because there’s only ever been like one petition for foia
4. It’s not, but that doesn’t mean you can deny a request for it. “An agency ordinarily may refuse to make available documents in its control only if it proves that the documents fall within one of the [] disclosure exemptions set forth [by statute.]” Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 141 (1989).
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 10:14 a.m.
I’ve already responded to the ‘broad’ exemption in Petitioner’s Petition for FOIA Release, ¶ 22–24.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 10:16 a.m.
- If a FOIA Request “is too broad, then the FOIA officer may deny the request and notify the FOIA
requester . . . .” 4 M.S.C. 5 § 5307. However, this specific procedural flaw in a Request must not be
construed as a loophole through which agencies could deny the public access to legitimate
information, as it has been held that broad, sweeping requests lacking specificity are not permissible.3
- ‘Broad’ Requests are Requests that are not “sufficient [to enable] a professional employee of the
agency who was familiar with the subject area of the request to locate the record with a reasonable
amount of effort.” H.R. Rep. No. 93-876, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1974). A ‘broad’ Request will not
‘reasonably describe’ the materials sought. Burdensomeness of a FOIA Request because of its size, in
and of itself, does not entitle an agency to deny that request
- Petitioner’s request is quite specific, and we contend that it is not overly ‘broad’ for the purposes of
4 M.S.C. 5 § 5307.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 10:18 a.m.
Yeah I cited a US house session
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 10:18 a.m.
Yeah
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 10:18 a.m.
I’m cool like that
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 10:18 a.m.
Yeah
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 10:18 a.m.
:😎:
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
- If a FOIA Request “is too broad, then the FOIA officer may deny the request and notify the FOIA requester . . . .” 4 M.S.C. 5 § 5307. However, this specific procedural flaw i...
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 10:44 a.m.
40 messages are hardly impossible to fulfill
meowiittenmeowiitten
Click to see attachment.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:09 a.m.
I think its a bit more than 40.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
I think its a bit more than 40.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:09 a.m.
He didn’t include the timestamp
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:09 a.m.
He said with the timestamp the total is about 40
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:11 a.m.
Right
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:13 a.m.
Well the only question that really remains is how exactly they're not relevant; I mean if they fall under another exception then they cannot be disclosed @meowiitten
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:13 a.m.
Exemptions
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Well the only question that really remains is how exactly they're not relevant; I mean if they fall under another exception then they cannot be disclosed @meowiitten
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:14 a.m.
No uh
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:14 a.m.
What remains is the classification
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:14 a.m.
It can’t be withheld just because it’s “not relevant” because that’s not a numbered exemption
IanIan
What remains is the classification
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:14 a.m.
So he would have to prove it’s classified by showing the classification
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:14 a.m.
Otherwise he has to disclose
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:25 a.m.
@vloqsouls can you tell him to show if it’s classified
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:26 a.m.
(1) any and all communications circulated by any mean, including Discord Direct Messages (DMs), from or to the Department of Justice, and/or the Attorney General’s Office, including Attorney General Impacto, between 1 September 2025 9:12 PM GMT-3 and the time you’re receiving this, relating to Attorney General Directives No. 2025-83125-01, 02, and 03, and/or containing the keywords “directive”, “AG”, “attorney general”, “memo”, “memorandum”, “memoranda”, “npz_v”, “county”, “security”, “classification”, “classifications”, “classified”, “information”, “confidential”, “secret”, “top secret”, “clearance”, “law”, “enforcement”, “police”, “officer”, “officers”;
(2) any and all communications circulated by any mean, including Discord Direct Messages (DMs), among the Department of Justice, and/or the Attorney General’s
Office, including Attorney General Impacto, between 1 September 2025 9:12 PM GMT-3 and the time you’re receiving this, relating to Attorney General Directives No. 2025-83125-01, 02, and 03, and/or containing the keywords “directive”, “AG”, “attorney general”, “memo”, “memorandum”, “memoranda”, “npz_v”, “county”, “security”, “classification”, “classifications”, “classified”, “information”, “confidential”, “secret”, “top secret”, “clearance”, “law”, “enforcement”, “police”, “officer”, “officers”.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
(1) any and all communications circulated by any mean, including Discord Direct Messages (DMs), from or to the Department of Justice, and/or the Attorney General’s Office, includ...
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:29 a.m.
Not DMs, except for work GCs
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:29 a.m.
Because they’re exempt by community rules
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:29 a.m.
But everything else yes
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:30 a.m.
No, it's a bright line ban on all DMs.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:30 a.m.
Tell that to the mods not me.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:31 a.m.
Actually it extends to server audit logs and secure channels because mods interpreted PII to include pretty much everything you can't access publicly
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:35 a.m.
@Ian @meowiitten Ok here's what I'll do
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:36 a.m.
Instead of doing this back and forth I will simply make a ruling and determine the scope of the FOIA materials
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:36 a.m.
Once I do that whatever is left I can review in camera to determine whether it falls under a legitimate FOIA exception
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:36 a.m.
or some other objection relating to community rules etc.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
No, it's a bright line ban on all DMs.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:38 a.m.
I’m pretty sure they’ve allowed GCs when it’s only related to a single department
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Instead of doing this back and forth I will simply make a ruling and determine the scope of the FOIA materials
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:38 a.m.
Matter of fact I don't even need to make a formalized ruling realistically considering that any reasonable person would interpret the "broad" statute to mean relating to a wide range of different topics,
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:38 a.m.
so all of the keywords effectively fall beyond the scope of any reasonable FOIA request
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Matter of fact I don't even need to make a formalized ruling realistically considering that any reasonable person would interpret the "broad" statute to mean relating to a wide ran...
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:38 a.m.
The word broad was already ruled on
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:39 a.m.
...I never made a determination on what constitutes broadness
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:39 a.m.
I only allowed jurisdiction to hear this case
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:39 a.m.
There’s already precedent on it though
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:39 a.m.
That’s not what broad is
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
- If a FOIA Request “is too broad, then the FOIA officer may deny the request and notify the FOIA requester . . . .” 4 M.S.C. 5 § 5307. However, this specific procedural flaw i...
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:39 a.m.
You mean the House session that you cited?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:39 a.m.
Yes
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:39 a.m.
That’s how federal courts apply it
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:40 a.m.
Ok but the fundamental text of our FOIA statute is completely different from that of § 552
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:40 a.m.
Your interpretation would effectively mean that people would have to make 15 requests if they need 15 things instead of just asking for them once
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Ok but the fundamental text of our FOIA statute is completely different from that of § 552
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:40 a.m.
Because it’s reworded to fit in the MSC, not because its functionality is different
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:40 a.m.
Mayflower FOIA Exemptions are analog to federal ones
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:41 a.m.
Whatsmynamehuuu established that in June
IanIan
Your interpretation would effectively mean that people would have to make 15 requests if they need 15 things instead of just asking for them once
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:41 a.m.
No, my ruling would prohibit overly broad requests made under our FOIA statutes within the ordinary meaning of the word "broad"
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:42 a.m.
Look I'll be straight up honest with you
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:42 a.m.
The only reason I granted jurisdiction to hear this case was because if I didn't it would effectively nullify the statute, which isn't something I can reasonably rationalize even under my narrow views
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:43 a.m.
The absurdity doctrine is arguably one of if not the only purposive ideas which can be accepted when it comes to statutory construction
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:43 a.m.
I already made one leap of faith into the dark by interpreting this Court's jurisdiction to include denied requests, but for me to make another leap of faith into interpreting common words to mean something which they do not is simply irrational.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:44 a.m.
@Ian Unless you have legal precedent, that is, from a court of law relating to what constitutes "broadness" under FOIA, then I can only deviate to the ordinary meaning of the word
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:44 a.m.
I do
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:44 a.m.
I cited it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:45 a.m.
It’s Dep’t of Justice
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:45 a.m.
The House session is not legal precedent.
IanIan
3. Messages in a department chat are regarded as agency records subject to FOIA disclosure, just that there’s no case law about it because there’s only ever been like one petition ...
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:45 a.m.
Ok this doesn't relate to broadness at all.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Ok this doesn't relate to broadness at all.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:45 a.m.
He didn’t ask about broadness
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:45 a.m.
So I didnt respond to it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:45 a.m.
I responded to what he asserted
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:46 a.m.
Ok well I am asking you about broadness
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:46 a.m.
That is my current line of inquiry, because that is the primary justification for the denial in the first place.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:46 a.m.
Broad: (3) general; without detail: a boad outline of NATO’s position.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:46 a.m.
that’s the definition
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:46 a.m.
You’re referring to the other definition of the word,
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:46 a.m.
From whom
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:46 a.m.
Oxford
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:46 a.m.
One second
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:47 a.m.
Broad: (2) covering a large number and wide scope of subjects or areas: a broad range of experience.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:47 a.m.
you’re interpreting this as if the second definition is the most appropriate
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:47 a.m.
It’s clearly not
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:48 a.m.
I think you are cherry picking counsellor; "broad range of experience" is the example, not part of the definition itself.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:48 a.m.
Requests are only meant to be denied when the request is so broad and vague that it’s reasonably implausible to fulfill it—not when necessarily it covers a wide range of materials, or even if it would be hard to fulfill because it’s very big
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
I think you are cherry picking counsellor; "broad range of experience" is the example, not part of the definition itself.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:48 a.m.
Yes it’s the example
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:48 a.m.
That’s why it’s in italics
IanIan
Broad: (3) general; without detail: a boad outline of NATO’s position.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:48 a.m.
Broad*
IanIan
Requests are only meant to be denied when the request is so broad and vague that it’s reasonably implausible to fulfill it—not when necessarily it covers a wide range of materials,...
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:49 a.m.
But this is precisely the problem, because our FOIA statute does not make this implication period.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:49 a.m.
it does though
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:49 a.m.
"If a request is too broad..."
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:49 a.m.
As in, covering a large number and wide scope of subjects or areas.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:49 a.m.
Mo
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:49 a.m.
No
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:50 a.m.
Here I'll substitute the word broad for its definition
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:50 a.m.
Exemptions are governed by federal interpretations and they’re taken from their federal counterpart. This same court has already established that in a different case
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:50 a.m.
Broadness is a quasi exemption
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:50 a.m.
"If a request covers a large number and wide scope of subjects or areas, then the FOIA officer may deny the request and notify the FOIA requester of such."
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:51 a.m.
You seem to be the one that’s cherry picking, your honor
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:51 a.m.
Is this not a coherent sentence or am I missing something
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:51 a.m.
There are two definitions to the word ‘broad’ and you are insisting on only using one
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:51 a.m.
Yes, the common definition.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 11:51 a.m.
7 pings in the same thing
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Yes, the common definition.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:51 a.m.
The two definitions are common
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:51 a.m.
And applicable
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:51 a.m.
But one makes more sense and is the one everybody uses
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:51 a.m.
Whereas the other isn’t used in like any FOIA system ever
IanIan
The two definitions are common
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:52 a.m.
Which one should I use and why
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:52 a.m.
I cannot use two separate definitions to define the same term
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:52 a.m.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:53 a.m.
Well there's also actually another definition of broad which is a woman
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:53 a.m.
which is technically common as well
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:53 a.m.
albeit more informal
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Well there's also actually another definition of broad which is a woman
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:53 a.m.
Actually I think that’s the one
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:53 a.m.
Yes
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:54 a.m.
When it comes to FOIA, you’re always allowed to request as much and whatever as you want, even if it’s burdensome for the agency to fulfill
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:54 a.m.
That’s always been the norm and it’s always been what’s acceptable
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:55 a.m.
I can ask for 40 things, spanning from the Epstein files to the blueprints to a public park
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:55 a.m.
And it’s permissible
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:55 a.m.
I think you are conflating whether something is broad to simply mean "too much to handle"
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:55 a.m.
The issue arises when the agency recordkeeper can’t actually tell what you want
IanIan
I can ask for 40 things, spanning from the Epstein files to the blueprints to a public park
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:55 a.m.
Bad analogy; those 40 things are actually specific
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
I think you are conflating whether something is broad to simply mean "too much to handle"
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:55 a.m.
No, I’m advocating against exactly that
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Bad analogy; those 40 things are actually specific
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:55 a.m.
Yes exactly
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:55 a.m.
The Epstein files refers to a very specific set of files, that is, relating to Jeffrey Epstein
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:56 a.m.
Therefore they’d be permissible
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:56 a.m.
Keywords are not specific.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:56 a.m.
Keywords are keywords
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:56 a.m.
You can find them by searching for the keyword
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:56 a.m.
In discord
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:56 a.m.
And they are not specific.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:56 a.m.
That’s it
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:56 a.m.
on their own.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:56 a.m.
How is it not specific
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:56 a.m.
Are you trolling
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:56 a.m.
Because keywords can be used in a wide range of contexts
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:56 a.m.
Yes and I want to get the messages of each one
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:57 a.m.
That contains it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:57 a.m.
It’s not hard
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:57 a.m.
The agency can fulfill it
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:57 a.m.
You're right it isn't
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:57 a.m.
Which is exactly why I will be using the normal definition of broad to mean wide-encompassing
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:57 a.m.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Which is exactly why I will be using the normal definition of broad to mean wide-encompassing
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:57 a.m.
That’s not the definition anybody uses at all
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:57 a.m.
No FOIA system uses this
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:57 a.m.
Ever
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:58 a.m.
They use the definition that it’s so general and vague that a recordkeeper can’t plausibly fulfill it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:58 a.m.
Everything else is game
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:58 a.m.
Why are you so insistent on this?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:58 a.m.
Because I like to use common sense
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:58 a.m.
And issue rulings and decisions based on common sense, not abstract definitions
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:58 a.m.
that are technically true but not applicable within the context of its usage
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
And issue rulings and decisions based on common sense, not abstract definitions
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:58 a.m.
It’s the definition used by literally every FOIA system
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:58 a.m.
And it’s 100% applicable
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:59 a.m.
But you’re going the other way…?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:59 a.m.
I think we are just going in circles ngl
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 11:59 a.m.
Because how do you expect me to use an abstract, technical definition for a word which has a more commonly used one
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
I think we are just going in circles ngl
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 11:59 a.m.
Well yes you’re opting for a definition that is not the one that anybody uses at all when it comes to FOIA just because it’s “common” in non-FOIA contexts
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:00 p.m.
I think any person would interpret the FOIA statute to mean "any request which covers too many topics at the same time"
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Because how do you expect me to use an abstract, technical definition for a word which has a more commonly used one
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:00 p.m.
How is “general; lacking detail” ‘abstract’ and ‘technical’
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
I think any person would interpret the FOIA statute to mean "any request which covers too many topics at the same time"
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:00 p.m.
You’re wrong then
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:00 p.m.
That’s not how it’s interpreted
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:00 p.m.
Ohhh my bad I'm wrong
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:00 p.m.
Do you want case law
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:00 p.m.
Yes
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:00 p.m.
Ok
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:01 p.m.
I’ll send soon Im on phone rn
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:01 p.m.
I’ll also direct you to several government websites that explain FOIA and the meaning of broadness
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:01 p.m.
Because this is well established
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:02 p.m.
Respectfully I don't care what federal FOIA says because we do not utilize federal FOIA.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:02 p.m.
We have our own system with its own provisions.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:02 p.m.
Simple as.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Respectfully I don't care what federal FOIA says because we do not utilize federal FOIA.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:02 p.m.
We do though exemptions are modeled after FOIA and federal case law regarding it is binding
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:02 p.m.
That’s like the main holding of whatsmynamehuuu
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:02 p.m.
Our system is analog to the federal one
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:03 p.m.
But also no state FOIA statute ever has said that you can deny a request if it ‘covers too many topics’
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:03 p.m.
Because that would just be utterly absurd..?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
There’s no purpose in forcing somebody to send 15 FOIA requests because they span different topics and they aren’t allowed to put them in one request
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Click to see attachment.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
Yeah that’s corrext
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
Correct
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
...Which is what I said
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
That’s vague and lacking specificity
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
No
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
It’s a sweeping request and not allowed
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
Overly vague and undefined scope
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
Which is what your keywords do
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
They literally don’t
IanIan
It’s a sweeping request and not allowed
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
Ok what is the point of you including keywords in your request
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
What is the legitimate objective in doing so
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
I’m defining exactly what I want
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
What is the legitimate objective in doing so
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:04 p.m.
I don’t need to have one
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:05 p.m.
You do
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:05 p.m.
No
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:05 p.m.
I need to “provide the reason” and that’s it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:05 p.m.
I have
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:05 p.m.
And whats the reason for all of the keywords?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:05 p.m.
"I want all records that have them!"
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:05 p.m.
Same as the rest of the reason
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:05 p.m.
..Which is what
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:06 p.m.
It’s in exhibit A
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:06 p.m.
To obtain evidence
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:06 p.m.
Isn't the #1 rule of legal argumentation to pretend that the judge is an idiot
IanIan
To obtain evidence
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:06 p.m.
Now we're getting somewhere
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:06 p.m.
You are essentially using FOIA as a quasi-discovery for an incoming matter
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:06 p.m.
is that correct yes or no
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:06 p.m.
Yes
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:06 p.m.
Ok
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:07 p.m.
And it’s discouraged but legal
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:07 p.m.
And allowed
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:07 p.m.
Would these citations not contravene that very idea?

"Discovery for litigation purposes is not an expressly indicated purpose of [FOIA]." Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 US 1, 24 (1974); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978); see also United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. 792 (1984) (holding that FOIA cannot be used to supplement or replace civil discovery); Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U. S. 345, 360, n. 14 (1982) (same).
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:07 p.m.
They hold that the purpose of FOIA isn’t discovery
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:07 p.m.
But they don’t say a request can be denied for that
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:08 p.m.
Because it can’t
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:09 p.m.
Well if its a discouraged practice which borders legality why should I grant the request in its current form?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:09 p.m.
There are 14 total messages mentioning npz_v in the DOJ Discord. 2 of them are from the last 6 days (his time frame?): one of them is in an arbitration ticket, the other is quoting from the SSC memorandum. The rest are passing reference and mostly from before I was AG
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Well if its a discouraged practice which borders legality why should I grant the request in its current form?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:10 p.m.
Because you literally cannot withhold it unless an exemption applies
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:10 p.m.
Also most of the DOJ Discord’s channels are classified
meowiittenmeowiitten
Also most of the DOJ Discord’s channels are classified
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:10 p.m.
You’ll prove that in due time
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:10 p.m.
At the top of the channel headed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:10 p.m.
Well I can do it right now
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:10 p.m.
He said he didn’t want a brief
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:10 p.m.
So I will just do it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:11 p.m.
I mean
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:11 p.m.
We’re talking about whether it’s broad
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:11 p.m.
IanIan
Because you literally cannot withhold it unless an exemption applies
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:12 p.m.
Hm.

"Moreover, respondents' contention that they can obtain through the FOIA material that is normally privileged would create an anomaly in that the FOIA could be used to supplement civil discovery. We have consistently rejected such a construction of the FOIA." United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. 792 (1984) (emphasis added)
meowiittenmeowiitten
Click to see attachment.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:12 p.m.
Is that where every message is
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:12 p.m.
First classified by mandatorymorale on 9/2/2024
meowiittenmeowiitten
First classified by mandatorymorale on 9/2/2024
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:12 p.m.
We'll get to classification in a second don't worry
IanIan
Is that where every message is
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:12 p.m.
No it’s all over and mostly in old arbitration tickets which I can’t really send
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:12 p.m.
I'm focused on whether its broad or not
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Hm. "Moreover, respondents' contention that they can obtain through the FOIA material that is normally privileged would create an anomaly in that the FOIA could be used to supplem...
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:12 p.m.
Yeah discovery isn’t the purpose but you still can’t withhold because of it
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:12 p.m.
?order
Dyno
Dyno Bot2025-09-07 12:12 p.m.
Order!

“Judicial officers are officers of unwavering authority and impartiality.” Minute Order to Hold Defendant in Civil Contempt, at ¶ 1, Kingley Napley v. Adolobee, No. CV-0068-24, (Mayfl. Dist. Ct. Feb. 19 2025) (citing Zrihem, et al. v. TDark99, 1 Mayfl. ___, ___ (2024) (slip op., at 11) (Cabot, J., dissenting)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court will not tolerate any further disruptions!
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:13 p.m.
Thanks
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:13 p.m.
One line of inquiry at a time pls
meowiittenmeowiitten
No it’s all over and mostly in old arbitration tickets which I can’t really send
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:13 p.m.
You realize my request has a timestamp
IanIan
Yeah discovery isn’t the purpose but you still can’t withhold because of it
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:13 p.m.
Ok so
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
(1) any and all communications circulated by any mean, including Discord Direct Messages (DMs), from or to the Department of Justice, and/or the Attorney General’s Office, includ...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:14 p.m.
Fonda v. CIA, 434 F. Supp. 498, 501 (D.D.C. 1977) (request for all documents not mentioning plaintiff's name but which "concern her" held too broad).
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:14 p.m.
When the ruling says that the Court has rejected an interpretation of federal FOIA that basically allows it to be used as civil discovery, the proposition that FOIA requests made for that explicit purpose cannot be denied?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:14 p.m.
is somehow unreasonable?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:15 p.m.
Like I mean it's one plus one not two times two
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
When the ruling says that the Court has rejected an interpretation of federal FOIA that basically allows it to be used as civil discovery, the proposition that FOIA requests made f...
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:15 p.m.
Yes that’s correct
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:15 p.m.
They cant bc they have to fit an exemption
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:15 p.m.
You cant deny something unless it’s an exemption or procedural quasi-exemption
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:15 p.m.
Like broadness
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:15 p.m.
Other than that you simply cant
meowiittenmeowiitten
Fonda v. CIA, 434 F. Supp. 498, 501 (D.D.C. 1977) (request for all documents not mentioning plaintiff's name but which "concern her" held too broad).
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:16 p.m.
@Ian ?
meowiittenmeowiitten
Fonda v. CIA, 434 F. Supp. 498, 501 (D.D.C. 1977) (request for all documents not mentioning plaintiff's name but which "concern her" held too broad).
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:16 p.m.
I’m not asking for documents that would concern me
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:16 p.m.
I’m asking for documents that actually name me, which are literally the easiest thing to find ever
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:16 p.m.
Ctrl+F
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:17 p.m.
It’s not broad
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:18 p.m.
The distinction is this:
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:18 p.m.
A recordkeeper can’t know what documents “concern” a certain person
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:18 p.m.
But a recordkeeper CAN search digitized files for a certain keyword, and provide them
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:18 p.m.
It’s very easy actually
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:18 p.m.
Only one of those keywords name you
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:18 p.m.
And?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:18 p.m.
And I already told you what it is
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:18 p.m.
Ok
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:18 p.m.
There’s two messages
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:19 p.m.
You have about 10 keywords remaining then
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:19 p.m.
To disclose
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:19 p.m.
One of them is already public, the other I’m not sending because it’s an arbitration case
meowiittenmeowiitten
There’s two messages
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:19 p.m.
Show them
meowiittenmeowiitten
One of them is already public, the other I’m not sending because it’s an arbitration case
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:19 p.m.
Ok you’ll have to prove the latter
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:20 p.m.
But you’re contending that I can’t ask for material containing a sufficiently specific keyword, with a very reasonable timestamp, unless the keyword is my name itself
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:20 p.m.
Which isn’t true?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:21 p.m.
Alright I think I've heard enough of this yappathon
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:21 p.m.
Sigh
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:21 p.m.
I'll issue a ruling FORMALLY
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Alright I think I've heard enough of this yappathon
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:21 p.m.
You’re the one that didn’t want papers
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:21 p.m.
KEYWORD FORMALLY
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:21 p.m.
Well it's a back and forth and going in circles
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:22 p.m.
And has devolved into a semantics game
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:22 p.m.
I don’t have an issue with a minute order denying the petition
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Well it's a back and forth and going in circles
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:22 p.m.
I mean yeah because my opposing counsel is somehow the presiding judge
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:22 p.m.
Excuse me?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:22 p.m.
Are you implying something
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:22 p.m.
I’m respectfully implying you may be overstepping here
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:23 p.m.
You’re making arguments that help the respondent when they haven’t even raised them themselves
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:23 p.m.
One
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:23 p.m.
That is not your call to make
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:23 p.m.
Two
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:23 p.m.
My lines of inquiry and scrutiny are not me playing ball game for opposing counsel
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:23 p.m.
Do not ever make such a brazen accusation again
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:23 p.m.
Because I will order you to show cause
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:24 p.m.
Respondent has sent like 10 messages here
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:24 p.m.
I understand the jurisdiction, but
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:24 p.m.
Are you challenging my ability to scrutinize arguments counsellor?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:24 p.m.
I mean I’m saying it’d probably be more appropriate for you to scrutinize once the respondent has actually responded
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:25 p.m.
It’s understandable for you not to wait in scrutinizing jurisdiction but
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:25 p.m.
The rest just seems like overstepping
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:25 p.m.
Because I am trying to understand what you are saying
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:26 p.m.
This line of argumentation is novel and overly reliant on rhetoric and non-legal gobbledygook
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:26 p.m.
You’re saying you’re going to rule when the respondent hasn’t even meaningfully responded
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:26 p.m.
Alright how about this
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:26 p.m.
I'll allow a formalized response
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:26 p.m.
I don’t want one
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:26 p.m.
I opt not to
meowiittenmeowiitten
I don’t want one
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:26 p.m.
Procedurally you need to respond
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:26 p.m.
I’m ok
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:26 p.m.
If you opt not to it’s default
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:26 p.m.
Ok default
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:26 p.m.
Lol?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:26 p.m.
Alright you still have to show you’re entitled to relief on default
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:27 p.m.
Good luck
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:27 p.m.
And I am
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:28 p.m.
@vloqsouls Not sure how much longer you wanna kick this up but orally I move for summary judgment or to dismiss, convert it into whichever motion is more convenient
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:29 p.m.
Cross-motions on paper?
meowiittenmeowiitten
@vloqsouls Not sure how much longer you wanna kick this up but orally I move for summary judgment or to dismiss, convert it into whichever motion is more convenient
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:30 p.m.
Well if you can just say “I orally move for dismissal”
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:30 p.m.
Then I respond orally to Respondent’s motion to dismiss
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:30 p.m.
Wow
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:30 p.m.
Isn’t that amazing
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:30 p.m.
In two seconds we’ve both filed a motion and reply without making a single argument at all!
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:34 p.m.
I movie to dismiss based on (1) impossibility (community rules on DMs), (2) over breadth (only one of the keywords is of and concerning npz_v), and (3) the classified information exception (every non-private channel in DOJ server is classified).

Marks v. United States, 578 F.2d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1978) (“Broad, sweeping requests lacking specificity are not permissible.”); see also, e.g., Irons v. Schuyler, 465 F.2d 608, 613 (D.C. Cir.) (request seeking "all unpublished manuscript decisions of the Patent Office" held "so broad in the context of the Patent Office files" as to be insufficient), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1076 (1972); Fonda v. CIA, 434 F. Supp. 498, 501 (D.D.C. 1977) (request for all documents not mentioning plaintiff's name but which "concern her" held too broad).

@vloqsouls
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:34 p.m.
That’s all
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:34 p.m.
Ok I’ll respond soon
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:34 p.m.
@vloqsouls can I reply in paper
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:35 p.m.
Yes
vloqsouls pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:35 p.m.
Omg
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:35 p.m.
Lets go
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:35 p.m.
Alr Ill get it in today
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:35 p.m.
I hate message arguments
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:35 p.m.
If you really want to waste space on your hard drive go for it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:35 p.m.
It’s so much better as a canvas to paint an argument on
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 12:36 p.m.
We’ll have to agree to disagree
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:36 p.m.
Here’s the one that actually concerns you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 12:36 p.m.
The rest I have no intention of complying with
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:40 p.m.
Also add your shit to the website afterwards @Ian
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 12:40 p.m.
you both have access
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Also add your shit to the website afterwards @Ian
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 01:03 p.m.
Alr
meowiittenmeowiitten
I movie to dismiss based on (1) impossibility (community rules on DMs), (2) over breadth (only one of the keywords is of and concerning npz_v), and (3) the classified information e...
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 03:49 p.m.
I am a little lost on what specific exemption you are invoking when referring to "the classified information exception;" I am assuming you are referring to 5305(a) over 5305(d) but I am asking because both exceptions have fundamentally different requirements in their invocation.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 03:49 p.m.
5305(d) deals with law enforcement records & related information as a whole which can be construed as sensitive information
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 03:50 p.m.
(a)
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 03:51 p.m.
And I'd be right in assuming that your argument is basically that all of the remaining records which are not broad fall under that exception
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 03:51 p.m.
i.e. DOJ server messages and arbitration
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 03:52 p.m.
I mean yeah the rest have nothing to do with him
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 03:52 p.m.
Like nothing at all
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 03:52 p.m.
I can swear to that
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 03:52 p.m.
I'm willing to accept an affidavit under penalty of perjury swearing that
meowiittenmeowiitten
I mean yeah the rest have nothing to do with him
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 03:54 p.m.
Right but the language of 5305(a) suggests that it can only be invoked for legitimately sensitive information that falls under state law classification procedures
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Right but the language of 5305(a) suggests that it can only be invoked for legitimately sensitive information that falls under state law classification procedures
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 03:55 p.m.
You can't second guess that
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 03:55 p.m.
Unfortunately
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 03:55 p.m.
But I can tell you it is classified
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 03:56 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 03:56 p.m.
It just says if it is classified
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 03:56 p.m.
Confidential is a classification level
meowiittenmeowiitten
You can't second guess that
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:00 p.m.
Well it's not out of the picture for courts to be able to do that but generally we're bound to defer to the executive for the purposes of classified materials.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:00 p.m.
Not saying that I'm second guessing because I'm not, just seeking a clarification
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:00 p.m.
As I've just sent
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:01 p.m.
Also genuinely like
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:01 p.m.
There's nothing to give him
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:01 p.m.
Hi
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:01 p.m.
I never talked about him lol
meowiittenmeowiitten
I never talked about him lol
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:01 p.m.
Maybe I’ll expand my search after this is over then
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:01 p.m.
I also will neither confirm nor deny if a conversation occured over DMs or in some kind of group chat
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:01 p.m.
GCs are not covered btw
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:02 p.m.
A GC we had whilst I worked in DOJ’s SGO was practically closed off for preservation because of a lawsuit regarding it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:03 p.m.
And I’m pretty sure it wasn’t out of our volition
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:03 p.m.
We got a judicial order to
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:03 p.m.
- Hayden v. NSA, 608 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1979) — If detailed agency affidavits show the material is properly classified, in camera review is “neither necessary nor appropriate.” “[U]nless the affidavits are deficient… the court need inquire no further,” and must give them “substantial weight.”
- CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (1985) — Under Exemption 3 (National Security Act), the CIA has “sweeping” authority to protect “intelligence sources and methods”; courts defer because the Director must weigh “complex and subtle factors” that judges are not positioned to assess. Once Exemption 3 applies, the court stops—no balancing.
- Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d 144 (D.C. Cir. 1980) — Judges “lack the expertise” to second-guess national-security judgments; agency predictions of harm are inherently predictive, so courts accord substantial weight.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:03 p.m.
Exemption 3 is exemption 1 here
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:04 p.m.
Are you citing this for the judge or for me
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:04 p.m.
Judge
meowiittenmeowiitten
- Hayden v. NSA, 608 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1979) — If detailed agency affidavits show the material is properly classified, in camera review is “neither necessary nor appropriate.” “...
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:04 p.m.
Well
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:05 p.m.
Whatsmynamehuuu did adopt this, but it also (in line with the same) explicitly held that affidavits with mere conclusions were not sufficient
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:05 p.m.
You’d have to go a little into detail
meowiittenmeowiitten
Exemption 3 is exemption 1 here
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:05 p.m.
No exemption 3 is not exemption 1
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:05 p.m.
For the purposes of the central intelligence National Security Act you’re very wrong
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:06 p.m.
It’s different to a classification exemption
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:06 p.m.
Ok bro like honestly there's nothing to give you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:06 p.m.
From the bottom of my heart
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:06 p.m.
Ok we are not having a debate on classified information and national security law
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:06 p.m.
You are not that relevant that a storm was talked up about you
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:06 p.m.
Stop talking
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:06 p.m.
@Ian Focus on your cross motion
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Ok we are not having a debate on classified information and national security law
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:06 p.m.
We could
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:07 p.m.
The point is he can provide an affidavit giving specifics
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:07 p.m.
Anything less is not sufficient
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:07 p.m.
He’s wrong about how exactly it works though
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:07 p.m.
Exemption 3 is to recognize other statutes not in FOIA that still warrant non-disclosure
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:07 p.m.
No we don't because theres virtually no national security law here i.e. no equivalents to the Espionage Act, FISA, CIPA, etc.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:07 p.m.
Yeah which is why I’m saying exemption 3 doesn’t apply
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:08 p.m.
I do not want to talk about national security law because thats not the primary point of contention here
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:08 p.m.
Look the specifics are irrelevant there’s no point
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:08 p.m.
The outcome is the same
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:08 p.m.
He needs an affidavit with specifics
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:08 p.m.
At least
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:08 p.m.
But we’ll cross that bridge when we cone to it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:11 p.m.
@vloqsouls
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:11 p.m.
This is what im talking about
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:11 p.m.
That wouldn’t be exemption 3
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:11 p.m.
It’d just be classified
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:11 p.m.
There’s a specific exemption for that
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:11 p.m.
So you not getting it boy
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:11 p.m.
I think it’s exemption 1
meowiittenmeowiitten
So you not getting it boy
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:11 p.m.
If it’s classified yeah
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:11 p.m.
I’m not
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:12 p.m.
We’ve been over this already ?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:12 p.m.
So everything you requested is in a classified channel and don't pertain to you anyway
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:12 p.m.
Yes yes we know
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:13 p.m.
How can I fail to produce what he is requesting if there's nothing to produce @vloqsouls
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-07 04:13 p.m.
Are you really gonna issue an injunction ordering me to produce nothing(edited)
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:13 p.m.
Who said you’re failing to produce anything
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:13 p.m.
There’s a motion to dismiss pending buddy you havent even responded yet
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:13 p.m.
Read up on FOIA
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:14 p.m.
DOJ has excellent guides about it
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:14 p.m.
Truly exquisite reads
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:14 p.m.
Actually I pinned his response and for our purposes I will consider that to be a formalized response so this entire discussion about "no response equals default haha gotcha!!" is over.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:14 p.m.
Oh so it’s not an MTD?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:14 p.m.
Either way it’d be a responsive pleading
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:14 p.m.
So no default
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:15 p.m.
Yes, now focus on your reply and stop arguing with opposing counsel.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:16 p.m.
You said it yourself you didn't like message arguments, so stop hitting yourself and write up a response on paper like you wanted.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:16 p.m.
Okay
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:16 p.m.
So it’s an MTD then?
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:16 p.m.
I am treating it as a formal response
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:17 p.m.
Because an MTD is not the appropriate motion to make anyways
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:17 p.m.
I mean a
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:17 p.m.
A FOIA petition is typically treated as a type of civil action
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:17 p.m.
A petition is like a civil complaint and it can be dismissed by motion
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:17 p.m.
A response is an answer
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:18 p.m.
Yeah yeah yeah so are petitions for writ of habeas corpus which almost never have pretrial motions filed ever
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:18 p.m.
Please do not get technical
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:18 p.m.
Alright so there’s no possibility of dismissal then
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:18 p.m.
It's either I accept your petition for disclosure or I don't.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:18 p.m.
or I partially accept
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-07 04:20 p.m.
There's no such thing as 'dismissal' for the purposes of FOIA petitions to the court.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-07 04:21 p.m.
Ehh
vloqsouls pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 12:32 a.m.
Tomorrow
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 12:32 a.m.
SJ
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 01:43 a.m.
Then he waddled away, waddle waddle
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 01:43 a.m.
Then he waddle away, waddle waddle waddle
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 01:44 a.m.
Then he waddled away, waddle waddle
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 01:44 a.m.
Till the very next day bum bum bum bum bum bum
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:05 p.m.
might be a bit bulky
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-08 08:06 p.m.
I didn't even file an answer
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-08 08:06 p.m.
How tf can there be judgment on the pleadings
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-08 08:07 p.m.
@vloqsouls Bro
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-08 08:07 p.m.
:😭:
meowiittenmeowiitten
I didn't even file an answer
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:09 p.m.
Yea u did
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:09 p.m.
Ur mtd was construed as a responsive pleading
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:09 p.m.
It says it in the motion
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-08 08:09 p.m.
The fuck
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-08 08:09 p.m.
Bro
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
I am treating it as a formal response
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:09 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-08 08:09 p.m.
An MTD is not the same as an answer in terms of a motion for judgment on the pleadings
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:09 p.m.
I agree
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:09 p.m.
Judge ruled though
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:10 p.m.
He said MTDs werent proper and asked me to not get technical
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:10 p.m.
So this is what we r doing
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:10 p.m.
Youre gonna lose buddy bud
😨1
😢1
😔1
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:11 p.m.
@IIranzay :😈:
😰1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-08 08:11 p.m.
💔1
😇1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-08 08:12 p.m.
ASMR
meowiittenmeowiitten
Click to see attachment.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:14 p.m.
Was that Trump
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:14 p.m.
Halfway thru the voice note
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:15 p.m.
I agree with you that an MTD is procedurally proper, but the judge didn’t, he told me not to get technical and he construed your MTD as a response(edited)
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:15 p.m.
I don’t know what you want me to say exactly I mean that’s what the judge said
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:16 p.m.
How am I bob here
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-09-08 08:18 p.m.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:20 p.m.
:fufu:
vloqsouls pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 08:27 p.m.
Currently taking a mean shit, once I get back to my dorm I'll review
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:30 p.m.
Your honor
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:30 p.m.
I’m not sure if respondent has an interest in debating this logically and meaningfully aside from his sarcastic voice notes
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:31 p.m.
But I will say for his sake that I do believe MTDs are procedurally adequate at this stage in a FOIA action, following whatsmynamehuuu rules and federal precedent
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:32 p.m.
Perhaps it’s a little unfair that he does not get to respond as he would have hoped, maybe accidentally and by omission admitting to factual allegations he otherwise would not have admitted
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:33 p.m.
I say this because I would hate to be a respondent in an appeal
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:34 p.m.
Still, I believe the 24-hour intended timeframe should be strictly enforced if a nunc pro tunc responsive pleading will be entertained
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:35 p.m.
Generally the idea is the respondent (the government agency) is meant to be quick to respond and justify their actions, whereas the petitioner has a more standard timeframe to submit their pleadings
meowiittenmeowiitten
- Hayden v. NSA, 608 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1979) — If detailed agency affidavits show the material is properly classified, in camera review is “neither necessary nor appropriate.” “...
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:47 p.m.
if I may address this orally
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:48 p.m.
hayden is correct
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:48 p.m.
Sims is exemption 3 for specialized agencies in other, non-FOIA statutes, which doesn't apply here because we don't have other statutes that specify information may not be withheld in FOIA, nor do we have an exemption for that if we did(edited)
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:49 p.m.
Halperin is also about exemption 3 not 1, courts are allowed to second guess classifications that are clearly not appropriately assigned in a way that uses segregation
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:50 p.m.
like for example blanket classifications that are clearly not narrowly tailored or segregated
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:50 p.m.
regardless, I'm not sure this is the right stage to bring these precedents up, but whatever
vloqsouls pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 08:54 p.m.
Night court materials
IanIan
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 08:56 p.m.
Wow how did I actually anticipate every single argument that was going to be made
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 08:57 p.m.
Good thing I had a draft ruling so this won't take much time
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:57 p.m.
Great
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:57 p.m.
anyways I wanna see if I can also get a supplemental authority from unionware on the community rules
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 08:57 p.m.
whether work gcs are exempt
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 08:58 p.m.
Yeah I'm not going to be considering any arguments relating to community rules because thats simply not a justiciable matter
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:02 p.m.
Ok it appears I don't have to amend my draft ruling @Ian @meowiitten
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:02 p.m.
Publishing in a few mins
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
Yeah I'm not going to be considering any arguments relating to community rules because thats simply not a justiciable matter
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:03 p.m.
yeah I know
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:03 p.m.
thats why I want to get Unionware's comment
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:03 p.m.
You hit the nail on the head man
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:04 p.m.
with the motion?
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:04 p.m.
thanks
Ian
Ian Server2025-09-08 09:06 p.m.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:06 p.m.
no GCs either @vloqsouls
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:06 p.m.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:06 p.m.
Ooo... sorry I forgot to mention it's opposite day @Ian
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:06 p.m.
:ijbol:
IanServerIan
Click to see attachment.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:07 p.m.
Ok pinning for future reference
vloqsouls pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:16 p.m.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:07 p.m.
Good to know
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:09 p.m.
FOIA petition is denied
vloqsoulsvloqsouls used
/transcript
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-08 09:09 p.m.
Creating transcript..
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:09 p.m.
“conduct a detailed inquiry to decide whether it agrees with the agency's opinions; to do so would
violate the principle of affording substantial weight to the expert opinion of the agency. Judges, moreover,
lack the expertise necessary to second-guess such agency opinions in the typical national security FOIA
case.” Halperin v. Central Intelligence Agency, 629 F.2d 144, 148 (1980).
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:09 p.m.
why is Halperin, exemption 3, being applied to would-be exemption 1
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-08 09:09 p.m.
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:09 p.m.
I explained this already above when rebutting sado's argument
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:10 p.m.
courts give deference to agencies that actually have exemption 3-specific statutes, like the NSA or CIA, not classified material in general that comes from any agency
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:10 p.m.
Do you intend on appealing or can I remove both of you from the channel
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:11 p.m.
hm
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:11 p.m.
Ill get back to you on that
IanIan
courts give deference to agencies that actually have exemption 3-specific statutes, like the NSA or CIA, not classified material in general that comes from any agency
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:13 p.m.
See this would be true if this were a federal level FOIA claim invoking federal FOIA statutes but our statutes completely differ in both substance and interpretation
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:13 p.m.
if I had sued the IIA (our version of the CIA) I'd get your point clearly that'd apply
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:14 p.m.
Perhaps you might be accurate in saying that our version of FOIA has an exemption 3-like statute but the text is fundamentally different
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:14 p.m.
but it's the DOJ
IanIan
but it's the DOJ
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:14 p.m.
The law makes no distinction between which agencies can invoke classification and which cannot
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:14 p.m.
The power to classify is awarded broadly to all department heads which my ruling addresses.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls
The power to classify is awarded broadly to all department heads which my ruling addresses.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:14 p.m.
errata, department heads designated by the governor
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:14 p.m.
then no agency at all would have the ability to invoke exemption 3
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:14 p.m.
so that'd be irrelevant
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:15 p.m.
..They aren't invoking exemption 3 because they are invoking our own FOIA which is textually different
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:15 p.m.
Do you not understand the point
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:15 p.m.
right but § 5305(a) is exactly the same as exemption 1
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:15 p.m.
you can claim others are different
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:15 p.m.
Ok final call are you going to appeal Y or N
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:16 p.m.
idk yet it's been 5 mins
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:16 p.m.
But Ill let you know asap
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-08 09:16 p.m.
Ok
Ian
Ian 2025-09-08 09:16 p.m.
its late rn
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
vloqsouls
vloqsouls 2025-09-09 02:27 p.m.
vloqsoulsvloqsouls used
/transcript
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-09 02:27 p.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-09 02:27 p.m.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 10:16 a.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Volume XI.
Exported 815 messages